Fwd: There is no ego in Cogito ergo sum.

[Guest guest]

NonDualPhil , " Wim Borsboom "

<wim_borsboom> wrote:

 

NonDualPhil , " Greg Goode " <goode@D...> wrote:

>

> NonDualPhil , Pedsie2@a... wrote:

>

> > P: Think on this for a bit: The phrase " I Am " has the singular

first

> person pronoun, and a form of the verb to be. " To be " in its

present

> infinitive form is unqualified existence. That is true nature. " I "

is

> a product of thought. A baby has to learn that he is an " I. " As

long

> as you need to hold on to an " I " concept no matter how tenuous, or

> grandiose, duality is there.

>

> ===That's a good one, Pete!

 

Interesting that in languages such as Latin and classical Greek the

singular first person pronoun is not as often used as in non-Romanic

languages such as English or German.

 

" Sum " ... is usually translated as " I am " but that does not convey the

original nuances of non 'ego-based' languages. A good example is of

course Descartes' " Cogito ergo sum. "

 

On that...

 

'Cogito' does not necessarily mean 'I think' as I will show.

 

But first here is a novel but humorous German approach:

You will find somewhere deeply in:

http://www.velbrueck-wissenschaft.de/produkt.php?isbn=3-934730-90-

6 & precat=search & kw=fischer

" Cogito, ergo sum. = Ich denke, also bin ich.

Was steckt eigentlich dahinter?

(What is actually behind those words?)

Etymologisch im " Cogito " verankert ist: " cogito " ( " cognoscere " )

[es] kommt von " co-agito " , " hin- und herschütteln " .

Cogito ergo sum heisst also: " Ich schüttle (mich), also bin ich. "

(I move back and forth, thus I am.)

 

 

In previous posts, maybe some 9 months ago, I have shown that the

word

'cogito' is linked to the Latin 'co' and 'gnoscere'.

'Co' derives from the Latin 'cum' meaning 'with' and 'gnoscere' means

'to know.' Thus 'cogito' does not simply mean 'I think'.

In those posts I indicated that 'knowing' in 'pre-modern' use is not

necessarily understood as a purely mental act. It expresses being

'akin', a kinship, knowing indicated 'being in contact with'. Thus

one

could only fully know something when one had contacted it,

experienced

it, touched it. (Hence 'carnal knowledge' or 'knowing through the

flesh' or copulation.)

 

 

On Descartes' " Cogito ergo sum. "

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ren%E9_Descartes

 

Descartes' writing as far as his skepticism about sensorial input is

a c t u a l l y not as well understood as it appears. It is commonly

concluded that he doubted sensorial input, but is not commonly

acknowledged that he doubted it most when the mind made flawed

interpretations because of dubious associations. He did not

necessarily doubt sensorial input or input that could be measured

empirically and verified while bypassing mental interpretations.

 

For Descartes 'cogito' stood for that 'knowing something directly', a

knowing without an interpreting intermediate unreliable thinking

faculty. That's why he used 'cogito' in the sense of 'co-gnosco': a

knowing that could be verified or was verifiable by more than one

experiencer and leading to reliable knowing or knowledge.

For him 'cogito' was not a 'personal individual knowing' which he

warned against, but a verifiable, formalizable consensual knowing.

Thus philosophically, ahead of his time, he set the stage for the

scientific method. By the way, the word 'science' also stems from

'knowing' but via a different root: 'scio' is Latin for knowing and

is

as concretely based as 'gnosco' is. The root meanings of 'scio' are

'splitting, rendering cleaving'.

Knowledge in Descartes view was not 'thinking based' but was to be

seen as based on 'concerted effort knowledge gathering'.

 

Hence 'cogito' or 'knowing' CAN NOT include an exclusive 'I'

or 'ego',

NOR CAN 'sum' or being!!!

(For 'sum' one can use similar deliberations as well as the

conclusions from Nagarjuna's 'interdependent arisings'.)

 

Accordingly, 'WE' are not 'solo' beings or separate solipsistic

entities but 'co-beings', connected, associated social ones, ONE in

Unity. Considerations like this lead to united connected oneness or

unity for the human, it proposes the 'social human'. It leads away

from 'only-ness' or the solipsistic, solitary separated, ego based

'man'.

 

Descartes became a hero for later writers who preceded and inspired

the French Revolution.

 

We have to realize that most current textbooks on Descartes are

regurgitations - copies of copies of interpretative translations from

the Latin by many 'thinkers' who did not fully understand Descartes.

Some projected their own non-physical reality based 'thinking' on

Descartes and used him to support their own pathological 'estranged

from physical reality' conclusions.

 

Ah, if Descartes would have known... !!!

 

Descartes indicated strongly that 'sensorial information TOGETHER

with

mental interpretation' resulted in dubious information. He doubted

such 'thinking' and preferred direct verifiable contactual knowing

without individualistic mental interpretations.

 

'Cogito ergo sum' transcends the usual tired interpretations most

have

of it.

 

Wim

--- End forwarded message ---